Glaze v. M'Million
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit court of Tustcaloosa county. Trover. Plaintiff below declared against defendant Glaze, and one West, in trover, for a gold watch; to which defendants plead separately, the general issue. The jury found defendant Glaze, guilty of the trover and conversion; but found favorably in reference to West.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit court of Tustcaloosa county. Trover. Plaintiff below declared against defendant Glaze, and one West, in trover, for a gold watch; to which defendants plead separately, the general issue. The jury found defendant Glaze, guilty of the trover and conversion; but found favorably in reference to West. The bill of exceptions stated, that on tlie trial, the right to the watch, in controversy, was shewn to have been in the plaintiff some considerable time before action brought. It was also shewn that defendant Glaze was in possession of the watch a short time before action…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
— The evidence before the jury, *281when this cause was tried, may be considered as establishing, that the plaintiff below, was the owner of the watch said to have been converted. That it was in the possession of the plaintiff in error, a short time before the institution of the action, and had been stolen from the defendant in error, by one Merritt. No claim of property was asserted by the plaintiff in error, to the watch, 'and no acts of ownership were proved against him, and all inference as to the existence of the one or the other, is expressly negatived by the bill of exceptions. On this…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Bolling v. Kirby & BrotherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Davis & Son v. HurtSupreme Court of Alabama · 1896
- Frazer v. SellersAlabama Court of Appeals · 1912
- Southern Ry. Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- Strauss & Sons v. SchwalbSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.